Teamwork and the Working Group on Internet Governance: A Case Study

1
Teamwork and the Working Group on Internet
GovernanceA Case Study

• Sheri Webber
• PAD 5106

2
Objectives

• To isolate and describe a particular aspect of
  the World Summit on the Information Society
  (WSIS) proceedings
• The Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG)
• Relate the case to a topic recently covered in
  PAD 5106
• Teamwork as outlined in the Denhardt text

3
The Case WGIG Initiation

• World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS)
  Phase I in Geneva in 2003
• governments could not agree on who should control
  the core resources of the Internet
• key players felt that the WSIS process did not
  satisfactorily included the private sector and
  civil society

4
The Case WGIG Initiation

• Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) under
  the auspices of UN secretary general
• Given a broad mandate
• develop a working definition of Internet
  governance
• identify the public policy issues that are
  relevant to Internet governance
• develop a common understanding of the respective
  roles and responsibilities of governments,
  existing intergovernmental and international
  organizations and other forums as well as the
  private sector and civil society from both
  developing and developed countries
• prepare a report on the results of this activity
  to be presented for consideration and appropriate
  action for the second phase of WSIS in Tunis in
  2005

5
The Case WGIG Initiation

• The UN set up a Trust Fund to finance the process
  and called for voluntary contributions from
  traditional and non-traditional donors, as well
  as the private sector
• Intention to broaden the political ownership of
  the process
• The UN established the Secretariat for
  administration of the group
• Multi-stakeholder consultations were conducted to
  identify a balanced WGIG membership

6
The Case WGIG Development

• The guiding principles for working methods set
  forth in the WSIS Declaration of Principles and
  Plan of Action
• Comprised of 40 members from governments, private
  sector and civil society
• Open representing the concerns of all
  stakeholders
• Inclusive representing concerns of all
  governments
• WGIG resolved to use the Internet to the maximum
  extent possible
• Maximize transparency and open communication
• Facilitate its own work- intranet, video
  conferencing
• Communicate with the public website, webcasting

7
The Case WGIG Development

• The WGIG held four face-to-face meetings in
  Geneva between November 2004 and June 2005
• Open to consultation by all stakeholders both on
  site and online
• 105 contributors submitted 182 written comments
• The WGIG sponsored regional and sub-regional
  meetings to elicit input from developing areas

8
The Case WGIG Development

• Phase One
• Fact finding phase intended to lead to the
  identification of public policy issues relevant
  to Internet governance
• Established online working protocols and small
  group collaboration techniques
• Produced 21 draft working papers on a wide range
  of Internet governance issues and made them
  available for public comment
• Defined key public policy areas that require
  further investigation by the group as a whole

9
The Case WGIG Development

• Phase Two
• Assessed the adequacy of current Internet
  governance arrangements and looked into the
  respective roles and responsibilities of all
  stakeholders
• Close examination of WSIS principles of
  multilateral, transparent, and democratic
  as well as the notion of the full involvement of
  governments, stakeholders and international
  organizations
• No consensus reached
• Different meanings in different government
  contexts

10
The Case WGIG Development

• Phase Three
• Developing proposals for action on the governance
  of the Internet
• Drafting of the Background Report of the WGIG
  activities
• Breaking up the Logjam
• Continuing effort to agree on a shared definition
  of Internet governance
• Reviewing perspectives on the history and impact
  of the Internet on society
• Reconciling differences of opinion about the
  appropriate scope and mechanisms of Internet
  governance

11
The Case WGIG Resolution

• The working definition (resolved at an
  additional meeting immediately prior to Phase II
  in Tunis)
• Agreed to proceed deductively
• Must meet five criteria
• Adequate to meet standard of working definition
• Generalizable to all definitions of governance
• Descriptive of actual Internet governance rather
  than wished-for
• Concise
• Process-oriented, open to steering by whomever
  Agreed to proceed inductively
• Agreed to proceed inductively
• Analyzing specific instances on Internet
  governance in society to identify common
  characteristics
• Analyze proposed definitions from
  multi-stakeholder groups

12
The Case WGIG Resolution

• Working Definition
• Internet governance is the development and
  application by governments, the private sector,
  and civil society, in their respective roles, of
  shared principles, norms, rules, decision making
  procedures and programmes, that shape the
  evolution and utilization of the Internet.

13
The Case WGIG Resolution

• Deliverables
• Recommendations on Internet Governance to the
  delegation at the WSIS Phase II in Tunis 2005
  http//www.wgig.org/docs/WGIGREPORT.pdf
• WGIG Background Report to the delegation at WSIS
  Phase II in Tunis 2005 http//www.wgig.org/doc
  s/BackgroundReport.pdf
• The WGIG Bookhttp//www.wgig.org/book-Launch.html
  
• Self Assessment
• Successful application of WSIS general principles
• Completion of mandate by UN Secretary General
• Historical contribution to social inclusion in
  International governance

14
Definition of Teams

• According to Denhardt, teams are
• groups of people with a high degree of
  interdependence geared toward the achievement of
  a goal or the completion of a task.
• Did the WGIG meet this definition?

15
Definition of Teams

• Hackman, 1990
• Teams are intact social systems with boundaries,
  member interdependence, and role differentiation
• Teams produce outcomes for which members are
  collectively responsible
• Teams operate in an organizational context
• How does the WGIG hold up to these requirements?

16
Definition of Teams

• Katzenbach and Smith, 1993
• Members have complementary skills
• All committed to common purpose, performance
  goals and approach
• Members are held mutually accountable
• How does the WGIG hold up to these requirements?

17
Team Types

• Top management teams
• Sets mission and course
• Rarely involve in operational management
• A process improvement team not a particular
  process but processes in general
• Does this team type describe the WGIG?

18
Team Types

• Project teams
• Formed by management
• Given a specific mission and timeframe
• Membership based on expertise and experience
• Functions as long as needed to solve a problem
• Advisory role rather than implementation
• Does this team type describe the WGIG?

19
Team Types

• Cross-functional teams
• Connects vertical lines of hierarchy in
  organizational structures
• Gathers representatives from functional divisions
• Full representation to consider matters that
  affect all organizational members
• Does this team type describe the WGIG?

20
Team Types

• Process improvement teams
• Small teams
• Formed to improve process in which the members
  engage
• Does this team type describe the WGIG?

21
Team Types

• Self-directed teams
• Works within organizational boundaries including
  deadlines, productivity goals and quality
  standards
• Teams decide how and when their work gets done
• Team does not depend on supervisory direction for
  its tasks
• Does this team type describe the WGIG?

22
Team Types

• Virtual teams
• Members temporally or geographically distributed
• Make use of IT to communicate
• Does this team type describe the WGIG?

23
Team Development

• Forming
• a time for orientation, identification of
  potential roles, and understanding the issues and
  personalities of other team members
• Conforming
• norms of behavior emerge, team goals take on more
  importance, and leaders direction is clarified
• Storming
• conflict erupts as the efficacy of roles and
  objectives are questioned
• Performing
• has learned from experience and continues to
  assess its progress
• Did the WGIG develop through these four stages?

24
Team Effectiveness

• Well designed
• Supported by management
• Beyerlein (1998)
• A clearly articulated need for change in the
  organization
• A shared mental model about what is meant by
  teamwork and its processes
• Opportunity by superiors to engage in teamwork
• Challenges from external sources galvanize team
  into action
• Was the UN (as a parallel to management)
  effective in its implementation of the WGIG?

25
Team Effectiveness

• Katzenbach and Smith (1993) discovered that
  successful teams tune their purpose to meet
  situational demands.
• Katz and Allen (1988) recognize that effective
  teams significantly interact with their external
  environments.
• Magee (1997) also emphasizes obtaining buy-in at
  all levels, establishing ground rules and
  fostering team bonding.
• Was the WGIG effective in these respects?

26
Team Effectiveness

• Self evaluation involves the team members and
  allows them to take into consideration the
  special circumstances that they face
• Did the WGIG engage in self evaluation?
• Team structure must reflect its overall purpose
  to be effective.
• Problem-solving teams are set up to solve a
  particular problem statement
• Creativity teams are geared toward innovation and
  idea creation
• Tactical teams deal with implementation problems
• Which team structure best represents the WGIG?

27
Team Effectiveness

• Team size - Denhardt suggests that seven members
  are ideal
• Team duration often indicates the amount of
  organizational support required
• Management of team diversity
• Training of team members - Wellins, Byham, and
  Wilson (1991)
• Technical skills
• Communication skills
• Critical thinking and process improvement skills
• How did the WGIG fare on each of these
  effectiveness measures?

28
Assessing Team Success

• Did the team produce the required output? Was it
  on time? Of high quality?
• Did the teamwork endeavor enhance the working
  relationships among its members?
• Did the team experience contribute to the growth
  and well-being of its members?
• Senge (1990) emphasizes that trust and commitment
  are essential for effective teams.
• Did the WGIG demonstrate trust and commitment
  among its members?

29
Conclusion

• In general, the WGIG
• Met the definition of team
• Fell into more than one team type
• Progressed through the team development process
• Demonstrated several characteristics of team
  effectiveness
• Successfully completed its mission
• Thank you for participating

30
References

• WSIS Declaration of Principles and Plan of
  Action. http//www.itu.int/wsis/docs/promotional
  /brochure-dop-poa.pdf
• WSIS Tunis Commitment. http//www.itu.int/wsis/do
  cs2/tunis/off/7.pdf
• WGIG Report. http//www.wgig.org/docs/WGIGREPORT
  .pdf
• WGIG Background Report. http//www.wgig.org/docs/
  BackgroundReport.pdf
• The WGIG Book.http//www.wgig.org/book-Launch.htm
  l
• Denhardt, Denhardt and Aristigueta. (2002).
  Managing Human Behavior in Nonprofit
  Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA Sage
  Publications